06/26/2008

There are some in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community who are uncomfortable with the fact that Barack Obama is reaching out to Evangelical Christians. How could he break bread—literally and metaphorically—with people who hate us? Doesn’t that mean he hates us too?

The answer is no. It’s time for the LGBT community’s penchant for “guilt by association” politics to go by the wayside. If Obama can bring a new brand of politics to America, why can’t we do the same for our own community?

The fact that Obama is reaching out to some in the Radical Christian Right and others who just consider themselves Evangelical is actually a stroke of political genius. In the past year or so, we’ve seen the goose step agendas of folks like Jim Dobson of Focus on the Family and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council turn into a mosh pit of Christian politics.

The voting age kids of Radical Christian Right voters who put George Bush into office aren’t so enamored with the narrow minded politics of their parents. The likes of Dobson and Perkins are painting themselves into a smaller and smaller corner because they can’t seem to see that there are other issues—besides abortion and same-sex marriage—that concern their Christian constituencies.

We’re seeing Christians of all persuasions concerned with global warming and the environment, with health care, with poverty, with the war . . . we’re seeing Christians of all persuasions recognizing that they can no longer afford to be defined by two issues in a world that needs careful thought and action to save it from itself.

And, we see Obama recognizing the trend and taking advantage of this shift. Why shouldn’t he? He wants to get elected and that won’t happen unless he builds a broad coalition of voters. That broad coalition must run the gamut from conservative Christians to progressive queers if we’re to be successful in November and change the direction of our country.

But, just because Obama is meeting with folks from the Radical Christian Right doesn’t mean he agrees with them. In fact, he’s more than willing to do what no other candidate has yet to do—call James Dobson out on the carpet for his narrow-minded, my way or the highway interpretation of the Bible.

This past Tuesday, Dobson aired a segment on his radio program that gave his personal dissection of a 2006 speech Obama gave to Call for Renewal, a progressive Christian organization. In that speech, Obama said that religion does not have a monopoly on morality, that our country is not a Christian theocracy and that political agendas, even if they are firmly rooted in religious beliefs, must use moral arguments rather than religious arguments to win the day.

Sounds pretty pluralistic to me. Perhaps that’s what got Dobson’s goat launching a diatribe that misrepresented Obama’s words saying the candidate was “deliberately distorting the Bible,” “dragging biblical understanding through the gutter,” “willfully trying to confuse people,” and that Obama has a “fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.”

Like the one brave kid who’s not afraid of the playground bully, Obama shot right back and said Dobson was “making stuff up” when he accused the candidate of distorting the Bible. Obama went on to say that people of faith, of which he considers himself one, “try to translate some of our concerns in a universal language so that we can have an open and vigorous debate rather than having religion divide us.”

Throughout the campaign, Obama has shown a fearlessness rooted in a political savvy that we haven’t seen in this country since Roosevelt. He has deftly weakened John McCain’s ability to attack by telling the public what McCain will attack him on. He’s reached out to constituencies and states that are traditional Republican strongholds—not to draw all those votes but enough of them to build a voting bloc that will mean victory in November. He has stood up to the Radical Christian Right’s playground bully and, in turn, is changing the rules of discourse within the religious community.

It’s time to heal the wounds that the Dobsons of this country have inflicted upon our citizenry. It’s time for all us—gay and straight, black and white, Jewish, Christian and Muslim—to take a giant step across the great divide that has become our country and bring us back to where guilt by association is a children’s game and the adults among us understand how important it is to find our common bonds.

06/24/2008

Should I give you my take on the Mets’ unseemly firing of Willie Randolph? Should I shift my focus to November when we must go into the Presidential election without the late, great Tim Russert and his white board? And when the legality of all those new same-sex marriages in California will be up for grabs because of a ballot initiative to amend us out of a currently inclusive state constitution?

Well, since I know a lot more about LGBT issues and politics than I do about baseball permit me to say that I’m disappointed that the Mets let Randolph go. His calm elegance in the face of recent baseball hysteria set a good example for players and managers alike. I was happy that at least one of New York’s two Major League teams finally had an African-American manager. And, let’s face it, the Mets did better with him as manager than they had in quite a while.

Unfortunately the old adage of sportsman-like conduct, “it’s not whether you win or lose but how you play the game” just isn’t cutting it anymore. As goes baseball, so does our other national pastime—politics. It’s no longer about statesmanship and bipartisan honor—we’re far from that these days. Now, politics is just about winning at all costs.

What we’re about to see in the upcoming presidential election will make all other races pale in comparison—that’s why it would have been so good to have Tim Russert around. He had a way of getting to the heart of matters at hand and in the last few years, didn’t shy from asking presidential contenders their views on LGBT issues, most specifically same-sex marriage.

The difference between Barack Obama and John McCain on LGBT concerns is stark. Obama is supportive on all our issues except for same-sex marriage. He does support civil unions and providing us with the same rights and responsibilities as straight, married couples. I think he understands the “rose by any other name” dilemma he’s in but the bottom line is he wants to get elected and same-sex marriage isn’t the issue to run on.

McCain on the other hand is not supportive of our issues despite what the Log Cabin Republicans say. For those of you who don’t know, Log Cabin Republicans are Gay Republicans—yes, Virginia, there are Gay Republicans and they mainly vote their pocketbook not their personal well being. While they haven’t endorsed him yet, Log Cabin features McCain prominently on their website and talks about how the Senator has a long, friendly relationship with the organization and that he’s even met gay and lesbian Republicans.

We all know that in the rough and tumble world of politics, warm and fuzzy does not cut it. McCain is no friend to the LGBT community. He’s against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Matthew Shephard Act also known as the national hate crimes bill. He’s for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and supports the ballot initiative in his own state this November to ban same-sex marriage. He does not support civil unions or repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. With friends like John McCain, we know who our enemies really are.

But, that’s not all. McCain is also bad for our health. He has flip-flopped so many times on Roe v. Wade that we have to go with his February 2007 Associated Press quote when he said the right to reproductive freedom should be overturned. He also supports S. Dakota’s law that outlaws all abortions, even for those pregnancies that are a result of rape or incest.

Like most anti-choice politicians, he’d rather see women barefoot and pregnant. Perhaps that’s why he opposed spending $100 million to prevent unintended and teen pregnancies and opposes legislation that would mandate abstinence-only programs to be medically accurate and scientifically based. He opposes requiring insurance companies to cover prescription birth control and supports the “global gag rule” that bars foreign non-governmental organizations from receiving U.S. family planning assistance if the organization uses its own money to provide abortion services, information or advocacy on behalf of pro-choice laws and policies in its own country.

The Mets may not have Willie Randolph’s calm competency and Meet the Press will never be the same without the passion and diligence of Tim Russert, but one thing is for sure—winning IS everything in this presidential election because we all have a lot to lose if John McCain gives Bush a third term.

06/12/2008

Just when you thought it was safe to board a flight to California to say “I do” the Radical Christian Right wing nuts have come out of their closet with threats of lawsuits and radio attack ads.

Reaching a quick fever pitch with an “Urgent Marriage Alert,” the National Organization for Marriage has an ad running on a local talk radio across New York. It starts with “Grandma, my teacher says if grandpa was a girl it’s okay, you can still be married . . .” A young girl contends that Adam and Eve and, essentially, God, are old-fashioned and a boy asks if Dad married a man, who would be his mom?

The announcer then steps in with an “Urgent Marriage Alert”—likes there’s a weather-system of same-sex marriage spreading across the nation undermining every straight married couple out there. He tells listeners that New York Governor David Paterson “just ordered state officials to use our tax dollars to help same sex couples evade New York’s marriage laws.”

Well, the last time I looked, my partner and I paid our taxes just like every one else--so, some of that hard-earned tax money comes from the LGBT community.

We don’t evade our taxes and we’re certainly not trying to evade the marriage laws as the ad contends. If that was the case, we wouldn’t be fighting for our right to get married. In fact, we’re trying to invade the law so that we’re part of it. And, if it takes the executive order of a progressive governor for us to get our foot in the door of marriage here in New York then so be it.

However, whipping up a bit of same-sex marriage hysteria on the radio waves isn’t enough for these folks. Arising from Arizona like the Darth Vader of the Christian Right comes the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal wrongs group, which will sue Governor Paterson for what they consider to be his sidestepping of the legislature.

They contend legalizing same-sex marriage is the purview of the legislature since the Court of Appeals threw it back to our two houses in its legal decision a few years back. Well folks, the governor hasn’t with a stroke of a pen legalized same sex marriage here in New York. Lynn and I can’t walk into our local clerk’s office and get a marriage license. The “I do’s” we say here are not legally binding.

All Governor Paterson has done is bring the rest of state law into compliance with a recent appellate division ruling that says the state must recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. That’s a lot different than saying gays and lesbians can walk down the aisle legally in New York.

But given the state’s dire fiscal predicament, our elected officials may want to take a second look at passing New York’s legislation. Well actually, the Assembly looked at the bill and passed it and Governor Paterson is ready to sign it. The hold up is in the State Senate.

But back to our state’s budget deficit—legalizing same-sex marriage would be a windfall for state coffers and local economies. But instead of NY cashing in, California is expected to clean up.

A recent study by the Williams Institute, the foremost LGBT think tank which calls the UCLA Law School its home, predicts that same-sex marriages in the Golden State will bring nearly $700 million to the California wedding industry and pump almost $65 million in new revenue into the state coffers over the next three years. That money, according to the study, will come from the over 50,000 California same-sex couples and nearly 70,000 out of state lesbian or gay couples who will get married there. Not only will revenue increase for the public and private sectors but all those nuptials are likely to create and sustain over 2,100 jobs in California.

How about kick-starting the nation’s sagging economy? A recent study conducted by the Congressional Budget Office found that if all 50 states and the federal government recognized same-sex marriage, our weddings would generate almost $1 billion in revenue each year. According to other estimates, same-sex marriages could tack on more than $16 billion annually to the $70 billion wedding industry.

Here’s the real Urgent Marriage Alert—same-sex marriage isn’t a threat to hets. It’s a good thing--for us, for our families, for our economy and for our country.

05/29/2008

Well I’m not about to break out into song with “Get Me to the Church—uh actually, Synagogue—On Time” but New York Governor David Paterson’a recent directive to state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions has gotten my toe tapping.

My partner, Lynn, and I have always said that when same-sex marriage is legal in New York State that’s when we’ll get married. Our concern has always been getting all the rights and responsibilities we’re due—like filing our state taxes jointly or having unfettered access to one another when either of us is in a hospital or another type of care facility.

After being together for 13 years—our anniversary is in a few weeks—we already consider ourselves married. Both of our names are on our mortgage and house insurance, we’ve named each other in our health care proxies and our wills, we wake up in the same bed each morning and we’ve raised a son together with his father and step-mother who has turned out to be a real mensch. If that’s not married, I don’t know what is—except, of course, for all the legal stuff that straight folks take for granted.

But now, despite the fact that we can’t say “I Do” legally in New York, our governor has decided to do all he can to pave the way for marriage equality in the Empire State. On May 14th, the governor’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed all state agencies that same-sex couples married elsewhere “should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.”

There are 1,324 statues and regulations in New York State that will be affected. They run the gamut from the very serious such as filing our tax returns jointly to being eligible for workers compensation death benefits and immunity from having to testify against a spouse in court to the more recreational such as transferring fishing licenses between spouses.

If you want a full run down of all the rights and responsibilities us same-sex couples are missing, go to the Empire State Pride Agenda’s website, www.prideagenda.org and click the red box entitled “1,324 Reasons for Marriage Equality in New York State.” You’ll download a 108 page report co-authored by the Pride Agenda and the New York City Bar Association detailing exactly what, up to this point, we haven’t been entitled to because we can’t get married. But with Governor Paterson’s order, same-sex couples who marry in Canada or California will soon be able to afford themselves of those rights and responsibilities. Only same-sex couples who are legal residents of Massachusetts can actually get married there so lesbian and gay New Yorkers must either go north or west to tie the knot.

When Governor Paterson sent a videotaped message to the Pride Agenda’s annual spring dinner in Rochester on May 17th, he described his action as “a strong step toward marriage equality.” What his action has done is move New York closer to fully legalizing same-sex unions.

Last year, then Governor Eliot Spitzer introduced his own program bill to legalize same-sex marriage in New York. That bill was passed by the New York State Assembly 85-61. The State Senate never took action on the bill. Whether the bill will come up for a vote again this year still remains to be seen but when it passes both houses Paterson is ready to take his pen and sign it into law. I don’t think that will happen this year but it is a distinct possibility after this fall’s presidential race.

No matter who the Democratic presidential nominee is, New York State will vote democratic. With an expected landslide on the D side of the voting machines and the New York State Democratic Senate Campaign Committee in better shape than it’s ever been, we just may see the Democrats take control of the State Senate. With both the Assembly and the Senate in Democratic hands and Governor Paterson in the executive’s seat, it is quite likely that New York will legalize same-sex marriage in the next few years.

So our dilemma is . . . should we wait until it’s really real in New York State or find our way to California beginning June 17th when same sex couples can start marrying there? Lynn’s cousin has already offered her home outside of LA and Disneyland as a honeymoon destination is quite appealing—at least to me. I won’t start singing but perhaps humming the Lerner and Loewe classic may just be the right note to hit!

05/15/2008

It’s hard enough to be sick in a hospital. Now imagine you’re there and the one you share your life with is deliberately left out of medical decision making or even barred from visiting.

Not a problem for married heterosexuals but a big problem for lesbian and gay couples. Because our relationships are not legally recognized in most of our fifty states, lesbians and gays can find themselves in legal limbo when it comes to protecting the health and well being of our loved ones—and not just our partners but our children as well.

Just ask Kenneth Johnson, an attorney who lived with his partner, James Massey and their adopted son, in Virginia. When they lived in California, they had legally registered as domestic partners.

In 2006, Massey was rushed unconscious to Howard University Hospital in Washington, D.C. Because their relationship was not legal, Johnson had to go back home to retrieve documents—like a medical power of attorney or a health care proxy—before the hospital would allow him to make medical decisions on the part of his life partner. Instead of being able to just be with his partner, unencumbered from the red tape and homophobia, Johnson had to fight for his rights as James slipped away. He died the following day.

These are the stories of our lives. In most states, second parent adoptions are not the norm so when two gay men adopt a child only one has the bone fide legal relationship, only one can legally make healthcare decisions despite the fact that both are equally committed to raising the child.

The Human Rights Campaign in partnership with the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association have embarked on an ambitious project to help alleviate the pain and frustration we must endure in healthcare settings because our relationships are devalued or because as individuals we are devalued because of who we love.

HRC’s new project is called the Healthcare Equality Index, HEI for short. Similar to its Corporate Equality Index which over the years has had a substantial impact on the employment practices of Fortune 500 companies, the HEI seeks to determine how well our hospitals treat lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people.

All hospitals and hospital systems in the United States were invited to participate in an online survey which focused on five healthcare policy areas—patient non-discrimination, hospital visitation, decision making, cultural competency training for hospital staff and hospital employment practices. Only 88 hospitals or systems participated. 45 responded positively to each of the 10 LGBT specific survey questions.

So what were these questions? They were quite simple really. Did the hospital’s patient bill of rights or non-discrimination policy include sexual orientation or gender identity? Did the hospital’s written visitation policy allow LGBT domestic partners the same access as heterosexual spouses and next of kin? Did same-sex parents have the same access to their children as opposite sex parents? Did the hospital have a policy recognizing the ability of same-sex partners to make healthcare decisions for one another or same-sex parents for their kids? When the hospitals’ staff gets trained does that training include cultural competency on LGBT patients and their families? Did the hospitals’ own non-discrimination policies include sexual orientation and gender identity? Did the hospital offer domestic partner benefits?

These are important questions to ask. But they’re questions you don’t want to have to think about when you or a loved one is suddenly a patient. You just want to know you’re going to get the best healthcare possible regardless of your sexual orientation or gender identity.

While only a handful of hospitals responded to the survey, it is an important first step in advancing these policy issues in our nation’s hospitals. When the Corporate Equality Index began, only 13 Fortune 500 companies received a perfect score. By 2008 the number had increased to195. I expect that as word of the Healthcare Equality Index gets out, more LGBT hospital employees will talk to their CEOs about it and, in turn, the CEOs will talk to each other and before we know it hundreds of hospitals will be answering all the questions correctly.

The Healthcare Equality Index defines ten easy steps to start making the healthcare system inclusive for LGBT families. With all that’s wrong with our healthcare system, I would hope that hospitals would jump at the opportunity to adopt a common sense, low-cost alternative that heals wounds of a different kind.

05/08/2008

I’m not a big game show watcher. But I do know that you get to spin big wheels on The Price is Right and Wheel of Fortune. Sometimes you hit the jackpot, sometimes you land in a good spot and sometimes you get skunked.

And, that’s exactly what it’s like fighting for lesbian and gay marriage equality. With three spins of the wheel this week, we landed in two decent spots and got skunked once.

Out in California, while folks are waiting on pins and needles for the state’s highest court to decide on the legality of same sex marriage, the state’s Court of Appeal ruled on Tuesday that that when it comes to believing you were in a registered domestic partnership you have the same rights and responsibilities as straights who thought they were legally married.

It seems that Darrin Ellis thought that his ex-partner had sent in the fully completed, signed and notarized paperwork of their domestic partnership to California’s Secretary of State. He trusted his ex, David Arriaga--a common mistake.

It turns out Arriaga never mailed it in. When Ellis went to legally dissolve the partnership and get the assets from the relationship he thought he was legally entitled to, he found that the domestic partnership he thought he had never legally existed. Arriaga, on the other hand, asked the trial court handling the dissolution to dismiss it because the couple’s relationship was never legally recognized. The trial court complied and that’s when Ellis reached out to Lambda Legal, the nation’s largest LGBT legal rights organization.

Tara Borelli, Lambda’s staff attorney handling the case, argued that AB 205, California’s domestic partner law, gives same-sex couples the same protection under the state’s “putative spouse doctrine” as people in heterosexual relationships who believed they were married only to find out later that their marriage was not valid.

In what I can best describe as a back-handed complement, the Court of Appeal agreed with Lambda’s argument saying jilted same-sex partners who were hoodwinked should be treated the same as jilted common law wives and husbands.

I know this is definitely a step forward but I feel like my spinning game show wheel landed on $50 instead of $5 million. When I spoke with Borelli she told me that the separate and unequal system of domestic partnerships “simply isn’t going to be enough to help same sex couples. We’ll have to go to court over and over again for legal patch jobs to get the system to work.”

Fly across the country to New York State and another legal spin of the same-sex marriage wheel said that if we’re legally married in any other jurisdiction, say Canada or Massachusetts, we have to be treated as married in the Empire State.

Living in Rochester, Patricia Martinez and her partner Lisa Ann Golden went to Vermont for a civil union in 2001 and then to Canada to actually tie the knot in 2004. Martinez, who works for Monroe Community College as a word processing supervisor, wanted to add Golden to her health insurance policy. The college refused because health benefits for domestic partners were not included in the contract the Civil Service Employees Association had negotiated for its members. That has since been rectified.

However, before the contract negotiations began Martinez sued. In August 2006, the State Supreme Court agreed with the College because, as Justice Harold Galloway wrote, the state legislature “currently defines marriage as limited to the union of one man and one woman.” Martinez appealed and the appellate judges who heard the case overturned Galloway saying that there is no legal impediment in New York to the recognition of same-sex marriage and that those legal marriages, like Martinez and Golden’s, must be recognized as such. This week, the Court of Appeals, our highest court, refused to hear the College’s appeal.

Spin the wheel one more time, land on Michigan and the news isn’t good. Because that state’s ban on same-sex marriage was written so punitively, the state Supreme Court ruled that local governments and state universities there can not offer health insurance to the partners of gay or lesbian workers.

This is the legal merry-go-round lesbians and gays live with day in and day out. Some days we spin the wheel and win. Some days, we don’t. We’re forced to take a patchwork approach because we’re seen as second class citizens. But we’ll keep spinning our wheels until we hit the jackpot--liberty and justice for all.

04/24/2008

We’ll be in New Jersey next week for a mix of business and pleasure and I couldn’t be happier.

At the Jersey shore to speak at the state’s Library Association’s annual convention, Lynn and I will also spend a few days relaxing—long overdue after an incredibly intense first four months of the year.

I’m looking forward to just looking at the ocean and possibly sticking my toes in if the water isn’t freezing. I’m also looking forward to spending a few days in what could be considered the most LGBT-friendly state in the nation. Yes my friends, Jersey has attained that lavender-tinted gold star.

In addition to already having a statewide non-discrimination bill, a hate crimes bill and a civil union bill, this year the New Jersey legislature passed three more pieces of significant legislation.

One is an anti-bullying bill which requires schools to be more active in addressing harassment, including the kind of bullying LGBT students might face. This kind of legislation is absolutely necessary if we are to provide our kids with an educational environment that is conducive to learning and intolerant of intolerance.

The nation saw in sharp detail how not addressing anti-LGBT sentiment in schools can lead to tragedy when 15-year old Larry King was killed by Brandon McInerney, a 14-year old classmate, because of King’s sexual orientation and gender expression. Gay and flamboyant at 15, King told McInerney that he liked him. The next day, McInereney brought a gun to school and shot King in the head.

King was the victim of hate and homophobia. But, so is McInerney. If our schools taught openly and affirmingly about LGBT people and culture and had a zero-tolerance policy for bullying, LGBT students throughout the country who are harassed or worse because of their sexual orientation and gender expression would have a very different experience in school. If Brandon McInerney was taught about respecting differences instead of fearing them, he might not be looking at a life in jail.

With this new legislation, hopefully LGBT and straight students in New Jersey will have an educational climate that values diversity. Imagine growing up in a school setting where bullying is the exception rather than the rule, where kids actually understand what respecting each other means and where differences are praised instead of pilloried.

The second piece of legislation that passed in New Jersey this year was an amendment to the state’s hate crimes law to include transgender people. With violence against the trans community on the rise and the recent publicity surrounding Thomas Beattie, a transman who is still biologically a woman and is carrying a baby for him and his legally wed wife, protecting the transgender community against hate crime is an absolute necessity.

Beattie’s pregnancy brings the transgender community into a spotlight it hasn’t been in since Richard Raskin became Renee Richards in 1975. A headline story in People Magazine, a segment on Oprah and media attention across the country has led to a firestorm of trans-bashing by pundits and shock jocks alike. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and his compatriots Mika Brzezinski and Wilie Geist profiled the story during a “News You Can’t Use” segment of Scarborough’s “Morning Joe” show. Between the “ewws” and “that’s disgusting,” they sounded like a bunch of adolescents who could benefit from Jersey’s anti-bullying law. What’s worse is that Scarborough showed his innate homophobia by saying that one of former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey’s aides probably supplied the sperm needed for Beattie to become pregnant.

When supposed reputable journalists like Scarborough who have a national audience make these kind of comments, it gives license to those who are totally ignorant about transgender people to act on their fear. I’m sure we’ll see an increase in hate crimes against the trans community—thankfully in New Jersey they’ll be prosecuted more vigilantly because of that state’s new law.

The Garden State is also on the precipice of passing same-sex marriage legislation. But before it does that, Governor Corzine is about to sign a bill that will provide paid family leave for gay employees who have to take care of their partners. The only other state in the nation to provide that kind of protection is California. You’d think Massachusetts would since we can get married there but that’s not the case.

So when I curl my toes in the sand on the Jersey shore next week, my feet will be firmly planted in the one state that leads the nation in advancing LGBT rights. I won’t be shaking that sand out of my shoes anytime soon.

04/10/2008

Here’s a little known fact about me—I don’t go to see scary movies. Life is scary enough why should I pay for it.

So that means I mostly watch silly romantic comedies, movie musicals, Star Wars and Indiana Jones type films, historical dramas and documentaries. Of late, I’ve been glued to HBO’s John Adams. It’s been great watching Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney play John and Abigail as a couple who though separated a great deal share a passion for life and for each other.

Out of town as much as I have been the last few months, I haven’t made it to many movie theatres—thank god for Movies on Demand. I will, however, make it my business to get over to Proctor’s in Schenectady next Wednesday, April 16th for a screening of For the Bible Tells Me So. (For those of you not familiar with New York’s Capital District, Schenectady is about 15 minutes west of Albany—our state’s capitol—and Proctor’s is a wonderful, newly restored former vaudeville theatre that brings Broadway road tours, films and other sorts of culture to our community here in upstate NY.)

A documentary that’s won numerous awards, For the Bible Tells Me So opens the doors to five very American, very Christian families—including those of former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt and Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson—to discover how people of faith deal with having a gay or lesbian child.

For those of you who may not know, Dick Gephardt’s daughter Chrissy is a lesbian born to a Baptist dad and a Catholic mom. Gene Robinson is the openly gay, non-celibate Episcopal Bishop of the New Hampshire Diocese.

His consecration has been a lightening rod for homophobia within the Episcopal Church giving those on the right-wing side of that denomination freedom to spew their hatred. To his credit, Robinson, who I had the pleasure of spending some time with in Montreal during Outgames in 2006, has stood his ground. His church community elected him. His family supports him. His blended spirituality and politics inform him to tell the LGBT community to take back their houses of worship and to not let them be defined by Biblical literalists who use hate instead of love to preach their version of the gospel.

The film also features a Minnesota family named the Reitans—Randy, Phil and their son Jake. Jake has been part of Soulforce’s Equality Rides since 2006. Fashioned on the 1960’s Freedom Rides of the civil rights movement, Equality Rides bring LGBT youth activists to colleges and universities across the country that silence or exclude LGBT students in the hopes of educating and breaking down barriers.

When the Rides started, Jake’s mom Randy contacted me. I eventually interviewed her and Phil. It was fascinating. Here were two loving parents, firm in their Christian faith, sending their son off to educate others about what it really means to be Christian and love your neighbor. But more than that, they stood side by side with their son and got arrested with him, when Soulforce tried to deliver their message of understanding to James Dobson and Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs.

For the Bible Tells Me So promises to be an uplifting film giving hope to those who have been caught in the Radical Christian Right’s contradiction of ‘you can’t be gay and be a Christian.” The Right is constantly beating on us saying that the Bible tells them that being gay is an abomination and a sin.

As the clergy who are interviewed for the documentary point out, the Bible says a lot of things are an abomination—wearing wool and linen together, commingling crops, eating pork or shrimp. The Reverend Dr. Laurence Keene, of the Disciples of Christ points out that those abominations are always used to address a ritual wrong but are never used to refer to something innately immoral. As he explains, eating pork for Jews violates a ritual but it is not immoral. If it were, a lot of my faith would be in trouble—so many of us just can’t seem to stay away from pork fried rice when we eat Chinese after our ritual movie-going on Christmas.

When you look at it analytically, the Bible doesn’t tell us anything. It’s how we read the Bible, how we interpret it and how we use that interpretation that tells us something. It tells us we can use the Bible for hate or we can use it for love.

We’ve all seen what happens when the Bible is used for hate. It’s time to get down with the love and begin valuing everyone as human beings—regardless of who we wake up with in the morning.

03/27/2008

Hitler demonized Jews by saying we controlled the world’s commerce and banks.

Kern thinks gay money is being used to control the political process.

Hitler considered Jews the personification of the Devil.

Kern thinks LGBT people are the personification of the sin undermining America’s Christian society.

Hitler believed that Jews were the springboard for sedition.

Kern believes that “good citizenship” is not within the realm of LGBT people because we are not good Christians.

Hitler believed Jews have “always been a people with definite racial characteristics and never a religion.”

Kern believes all religions are not equal.

I could go on and on.

So, who exactly is Sally Kern, and why is she getting my back up? Well, she’s a Republican member of the Oklahoma State House of Representatives where she chairs the Social Services committee. She is a former social studies teacher and the wife of a Baptist minister. She is also the woman whose anti-gay speech to a local Republican group in her home state was posted on YouTube.

She thought she was speaking to about 50 people. Well, over 1 million have listened to her and she’s heard from thousands around the country how her words inflame hatred against LGBT people.

In her speech, Kern said that homosexuality is a “death knell for this country.” She went on to say “I honestly think it’s the biggest threat even, that our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam.”

So what is it about us that threatens her so?

It seems, like others in the Radical Christian Right, Kern is bothered by our mere existence. Oh, she’s not proposing to send us to the type of camps Hitler sent my relatives to. But, she sure does think the fact that we’re in her community, teaching in her schools, talking about our issues and expressing our democratic options as threatening to the principles of Christianity to which she ascribes.

Because of LGBT people, the United State is no longer a civil society because our existence undermines what she considers decent, respectful, moral behavior. Kern thinks the notion of a civil society is a Christian principle.

We’re also undermining another Christian principle--good citizenship. According to Kern, good citizens know what is right and what is wrong. I don’t take issue with that per say. The issue for Kern is that if someone decides on their own, without using her interpretation of the Bible, what is right and wrong well then we’re on the path to damnation. Using her logic, people who support LGBT rights are not good citizens because what they’re supporting is wrong.

Bottom line, we’re all sinners. Don’t be fooled by her “love the sinner, hate the sin” lingo, Kern thinks we can practice our lifestyle but that the homosexual agenda—whatever that is—is destroying our nation.

So, what exactly is the death knell or the bigger threat than terrorism that is implicit to the homosexual agenda? Plain and simple—money.

Kern thinks it’s an abomination that “gay people are motivated” and that some of the wealthier folks in the LGBT community or our allies have used their money to impact elections and public policy. She singles out Tim Gill, the inventor of Quark Express, Pat Stryker, the heiress to a surgical products fortune, Jared Polis, the founder of BlueMountain.com who is now running for Congress out of Colorado and Rutt Bridges, a Colorado-based entrepreneur, for using their personal wealth to impact the state of Colorado politics.

Calling them the “Gang of Four,” Kern credited them with changing the Colorado state house from Republican to Democratic and said that their goal is to intimidate Republicans.

Well, I recently spoke with Juan and Ken Ahonen-Jover about Kern’s intimidation contention. Juan and Ken run a site called equalitygiving.org which helps LGBT donors make informed decisions about their political contributions

“Sally is saying ‘poor us, we don’t have power, gays are taking over.’ It’s all part of this whole plan of trying to play the victim. We all know the right has the power. For them to say that they don’t is preposterous,” said Ken.

I wish we were taking over—then I wouldn’t have to rail about the indecencies we face every day as LGBT people.

But Kern has the drill down. She’s taken her rhetoric right out of Hitler’s playbook. “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” Those are Hitler’s words, not mine.

03/14/2008

We know what soon to be former New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer was thinking—and it wasn’t about strategy to get his Executive Budget passed or to move any of his other legislative priorities forward.

Like many men in his position, Spitzer let his power go to his head. Enough said about body parts.

My real concern, of course, is for his wife, Silda, and their daughters. They didn’t bargain for this and shouldn’t have to be in the spotlight because Daddy was a bad boy.

I also feel bad for the folks who believed in Spitzer’s vision and joined his administration. There are a lot of talented people working for progressive change. This is one of those times when I’m glad I’m in business for myself and didn’t stay working in government.

To say the least, the media circus surrounding this has been intense. I was disgusted by Dr. Laura Schlesinger’s pronouncement on The Today Show that Silda Spitzer was somehow to blame because she wasn’t a caring enough wife who made her husband feel like a man. Give me a break. Women are not responsible for the philandering of their husbands. The boys make their own decisions to step out on their wives.

It’s really interesting that Dina Matos McGreevey, the estranged wife of former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey, has become the media’s darling as the expert Governor’s wife whose husband cheated on her. He, too, resigned because of extramarital activities. But, McGreevey wasn’t paying for sex—the taxpayers were because he did put his male lover on the state payroll.

While I think she’s milking her divorce proceedings for all the press exposure she can get, I have to give her credit for taking Dr. Laura to task. Matos-McGreevey likened Dr. Laura’s hyperbole to blaming a rape victim for being raped. She’s absolutely on target.

This coming Monday will be “Day 1 Do Over” in New York State. That’s when Lt. Governor David Paterson will fill the vacuum that currently exists in the Governor’s office. This is welcome news for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

David Paterson has been a long time ally of the community. Paterson was one of those brave African-American legislators who stood by us saying the Hate Crimes bill had to include the LGBT community otherwise it would be a hallow piece of legislation that wouldn’t protect one of the most vulnerable and victimized groups in the state.

The first day in his position as Senate Minority Leader, Paterson led his colleagues in passing the Statewide Omnibus Non-Discrimination Act—a bill that we had been trying to pass for thirty years. Paterson has also been a long time advocate of marriage equality. In a January 2007 interview with the New York Blade he said, “One of the reasons we need same sex marriage is because the statistics for heterosexual marriage are so bad; that might be a way to upgrade some of the success rates.”

Just as important as his support for LGBT issues is his understanding of politics, the legislative process and the need for finesse. Clearly, steamroller politics do not work—even if you win 70% of the vote, as Spitzer had in 2006.

Paterson’s ability to negotiate and make his adversaries feel as though they’ve also won will be a welcome relief to Spitzer’s penchant for making political enemies. Don’t for a minute think that Spitzer’s downfall doesn’t have some political intrigue to it. Granted what he did was really stupid but it is the Southern District’s U.S. Attorney appointed by the Bush administration that is singling Spitzer out. You don’t hear anything about clients one through eight, only client #9. Let’s not forget one of Karl Rove’s legacies is politicizing the U.S. Attorney’s office in order to take out the administration’s political adversaries. Eliot Spitzer, a progressive Democrat, who could have been on the fast track to the White House was a perfect target. I’m sure going after Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno didn’t help either.

Unlike Spitzer, Paterson has a history of productively dealing with Bruno. While I wouldn’t say there’s a love fest between the two, I would say there is a good deal of respect and a willingness to work together in order to get the state’s business done.